Tyler v. Peatt
| Decision Date | 21 July 1874 |
| Citation | 30 Mich. 63 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edmund B. Tyler v. Marcus Peatt and another |
Heard July 9, 1874
Appeal in chancery from Washtenaw Circuit.
Decree as to Mrs. Peatt reversed, and the bill dismissed, with costs of both courts.
E. D Kinne, for complainant.
A. J Sawyer, for defendant Mary A. Peatt.
The defendant Mary Ann Peatt appeals from a decree whereby certain lands conveyed to her in 1864 by deed from George Boyden, properly executed and immediately recorded, were declared to be held by her in fraud of complainant as one of Marcus Peatt's, her husband's, creditors, and decreed to be subject to sale for his claim.
The ground on which this decree was sought was that, although there were no dealings between Marcus Peatt and complainant until about a year thereafter, and then no indebtedness except the contingent and possible liability of a partner to his co-partner in the result of disaster to the concern, yet the land was bought with the husband's money and conveyed to the wife for the purpose of defrauding future creditors.
As the wife very properly preferred, in the presentment of this case, to rest on the merits, and not on any questions of the form of remedy, it might lead to unjust suspicions if we made no reference to the facts. We do not feel called upon, for reasons which we shall presently give, to discuss the testimony at large. We need only say that we are satisfied the land was honestly conveyed to Mrs. Peatt to restore to her the value of her own property which her husband had been permitted to use in his business; and that, had the conveyance been made voluntarily and without that consideration, there is no reason to believe it was done with any design to defraud anybody. Marcus Peatt does not appear to have been in a position to tempt or urge him into fraud.
But, except for the purpose of preventing misapprehension, we should not have been disposed to refer to facts at all. Under our statute of uses and trusts, where property is paid for by one person, and by his consent or direction conveyed to another, no trust results, under any circumstances, in his favor. If the transaction was in fraud of creditors, the statute gives them a right to reach it; but this right is confined to them. He has no interest in it: 2 C. L., §§ 4120, 4121.
The controversy, when it arises, is between the creditors and the wife; and they can only call upon her to respond when they have put themselves in a legal position to set up a right to seek payment out of the land.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillen v. Wakefield State Bank
...exhausted his remedies at law. Jenks v. Horton, 114 Mich. 48, 72 N. W. 20;Ideal Clothing Co. v. Hazle, 126 Mich. 262, 85 N. W. 735;Tyler v. Peatt, 30 Mich. 63. A creditor is not entitled to the aid of a court of equity to attack conveyances or other dealings for fraud until he has become a ......
-
Salemonson v. Thompson
...v. Hoerr, 7 Minn. 377; Davis v. Davis, 25 P. 140; McClenney v. McClenney, 59 Am. Dec. 738; Millar v. Babcock, 29 Mich. 626; Tyler v. Pratt, 30 Mich. 63; Black Nease, 37 Pa. 433; Farris v. Dunham, 17 Am. Dec. 77. The grantee is protected if on his own motion he pays the debts of the grantor.......
-
Schroeder v. Wilcox
...the proceedings were void. (Smith v. Meyers, 5 Blackf. [Ind.], 223; Overstreet v. Davis, 24 Miss. 393; North v. Moore, 8 Kan. 143; Tyler v. Peatt, 30 Mich. 63; In re Mahoney, 34 Hun [N. Y.], 501; Hamilton v. Lockhart, 41 Miss. 460; Gulley v. Macy, 81 N. Car., 357; Marshall v. Rose, 86 Ill. ......
-
Towle v. Sherer
...caused to be conveyed to another to defraud his creditors has no interest in it. Kelly v. Karsner, 72 Ala. 106, and cases cited; Tyler v. Peatt, 30 Mich. 63; Harwood Underwood, 28 Mich. 427. No trust can be grafted on a conveyance absolute in form. Patton v. Beecher, 62 Ala. 579; Connelly v......